Late last month, the Navy and Coast Guard (USCG) released a
joint RFP for as
many as three new heavy-duty polar icebreakers. The nation’s seafaring services
want to take delivery of the first icebreaker by
2023. Given Russia’s actions and claims in the Arctic, the Navy-USCG focus on
polar operations is long-overdue.

Before
we get into Russia’s push to dominate the resource-rich Arctic, let’s look at America’s
interests in the Arctic—and its capabilities to protect and defend those
interests.

In its Arctic Region Policy, the administration of
President George W. Bush argued that “The United States has broad and
fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region”—including missile defense, early
warning, strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime security, freedom of
navigation and over-flight—and should be “prepared
to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to
safeguard these interests.”

Likewise,
the Obama administration emphasized that “The United States has an inherent
national interest in knowing, and declaring to others with specificity, the
extent of our sovereign rights” in the Arctic and “establishing the necessary
stability for development, conservation and protection of these areas, likely
rich in resources.”

Indeed,
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the Arctic holds 1,670 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas and 90 billion barrels of oil, equaling 30 percent of
technically recoverable global reserves of oil and 13 percent of gas. As
Bloomberg News reports, that’s “more than all the known [oil] reserves of
Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for
12 years.” About a third of the oil is in Alaskan territory.

These
resources will be increasingly recoverable and transportable because the fabled
Northwest Passage, once frozen throughout most of the year and navigable only
by heavy-duty icebreakers, is thawing. The Congressional Research Service notes
that an ice-free Northwest Passage could “cut shipping routes between Europe
and Asia by 3,000 to 4,000 miles.”

Good, Bad, WorseThe good news is that Congress allocated USCG more resources in 2016 for
acquisition and construction, including money for new cutters and new
icebreakers.

The
bad news is that U.S. has only two operational polar icebreakers—one of which
is a medium-duty vessel tasked largely to scientific missions and the other of
which has exceeded its 30-year lifespan.

The worse news is that Russia has 40 icebreakers, with another 11 in production. The disparity prompted USCG
Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunftto
conclude, “We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now.”

It
wasn’t always this way. The U.S. deployed eight heavy-duty icebreakers at the
height of the Cold War. Adm. Robert Papp, former USCG chief, warns this
icebreaker gap could haunt the United States. “While our Navy can go under the
ice with submarines…our nation has very limited Arctic surface capabilities.
But surface capabilities are what we need to conduct missions like search and
rescue, environmental response, and to provide a consistent and visible
sovereign presence,” he explains.

Papp
and Zukunftknow thatwords are not enough to
protect America’s Arctic interests, especially in the face of Russia’s
aggressive moves in the Arctic.

Russia lays claim to half the Arctic Circle and the entire North Pole—some 463,000 square miles of Artic sea shelf, as the Telegraph reports—disregarding the claims and borders of other Arctic
nations such as the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Worse, Moscow
has underlined its claims in a brazen military context:

·
In
2008, a Russian general revealed plans to train “troops that could be engaged
in Arctic combat,” ominously adding, “Wars these days are won and lost well
before they are launched.”

·
In early 2015, Russia conducted a huge
military exercise in the Arctic involving 80,000 troops,
220 aircraft, 41 ships and 15 submarines. By the end of 2015, Russia had stood up six new bases north of the
Arctic Circle, opened/reopened 16 ports and 13 airfields in the region, and
deployed sophisticated S-400 surface-to-air missile
batteries in the Arctic.

·
Earlier this year, Russian strongman Vladimir
Putin toured Franz Josef Land, home to Russia’s newest and northernmost
military base. New construction includes an airstrip capable of deploying
fighter-bombers and refueling aircraft.

·
By the end of 2018, Moscow plans to have nine
airfields operational in the Arctic.

Why
is Russia committing so many military assets to the Arctic? A report by the
Wilson Center argues that Russia needs new Arctic oilfields “to offset declines
in production at its conventional, legacy fields and to maintain production at
a level of at least 10 million bpd beyond 2020.” Oil and gas account for more
than 40 percent of Russia’s federal budget revenue, and as Putin explains, “Natural resources, which are of
paramount importance for the Russian economy, are concentrated in this region.”
So, to extend its petro-boom, as an AEI study points out, “Russia must
make huge investments in exploring and recovering oil from...the east Siberian
region and the Arctic shelf.”

Add
it all up, and Russia appears to be employing a strategy by which claims will
justify possession, and possession will justify claims.

“As I look at
what is playing out in the Arctic, it looks eerily familiar to what we’re
seeing in the East and South China Sea,” Zukunft warns.

Combined

Too
many Americans forget that the United States is “an Arctic nation with broad
and fundamental interests in the Arctic,” as Obama’s Arctic policy explained. A large swath
of our 49th state lies inside the Arctic Circle; some 27,000 troops are based
in Alaska; U.S. troops man a key military base above the Arctic Circle (Thule
Air Base in Greenland); and close allies Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Norway
are Arctic nations.

Those
nations share an important common denominator: NATO membership, and that points
the way toward a response to Russia’s Arctic landgrab. If the United States and
its Arctic allies can agree on a common approach to Arctic security, combine
their capabilities and play niche security roles in the Arctic, they can deal
with Moscow from a posture of strength and deter aggression.
If not, as former NATO Commander Adm. James Stavridis has warned, the Arctic could become
a “a zone of conflict.”

The
groundwork for an NATO Arctic partnership is in place:

·
Norway
has moved its military headquarters above the Arctic Circle, transferred “a
substantial part of its operational forces to the north” and based its largest
active army unit above the Arctic Circle, according to the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute. Norway routinely hosts multinational
Arctic maneuvers, including a 15-nation exercise on the edge of the Arctic Circle in 2016 enfolding 16,000
troops (1,900 of them U.S. Marines).

·
Denmark is
standing up an Arctic military command, beefing up its military presence
in Greenland and deploying an Arctic Response Force.

·
Canada’s
new government has shown a renewed interest in the Arctic. Canada is building an Arctic Training
Center halfway between the Arctic Circle and the North Pole and procuring drones
to monitor its Arctic possessions.

·
Another
Arctic nation, Sweden, is a de facto member of the alliance, collaborating
extensively with NATO in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya and air-defense
operations in Eastern Europe. Sweden has held large-scale Arctic war games
featuring as many as 12,000 troops.

·
The
Pentagon unveiled its first-ever Arctic strategy in 2013. In 2015, for only the
second time in 52 years, Marines deployed to the Army’s Northern Warfare
Training Center in Alaska. Marines are also training alongside Norwegian troops
and British commandos inside the Arctic Circle. Last year, two Los
Angeles-class submarines spearheaded U.S. Arctic military exercises designed to
“evaluate operational capabilities in the region.” F-22s have been deployed to
Alaska, some of the first operational F-35s will be based in Alaska, and U.S. anti-submarine planes may deploy to Iceland. U.S. Navy and Coast Guard units have joined
Norway, Denmark and Canada for Arctic maneuvers.

For
years, there was little support within NATO for a coordinated approach to the
Arctic. That is changing. At meetings this month, NATO defense ministers
will begin the process of standing up a military command focused on protecting
sea lanes in the Arctic, perhaps a first step toward a more comprehensive
NATO-wide approach to Arctic security and defense.

With
or without NATO, the United States and its allies should develop a
collaborative security component for the Arctic.

As
he has shown in Georgia and Ukraine, Putin has no problem using force to defend
his claims and expand Russia’s borders. Russia’s claims are different than that
of other Arctic nations both in the way the claims are being made and in the
nature of the claims: Other nations are not laying claim to half of the region
or the entire North Pole. And other nations are not making territorial claims
in a military context. If Russia continues down this path—using bluster and
military deployments to justify its claims—it will achieve a fait accompli in
the Arctic.

To
prevent that outcome, America, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden need
to collaborate to defend their Arctic interests and promote a rules-based order
in the Arctic. This makes sense for at least three reasons.

First, it would underscore
the allies’ seriousness about development and allocation of Arctic resources,
thus preventing the sort of miscalculation that could lead to conflict. What
Churchill said of his Russian counterparts is true of Putin and his generals:
“There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for
which they have less respect than for weakness.”

Second,
it would enable the pooling of assets, allow for a division of labor and free
each ally to play to its territorial and military strengths.

Third,
it would posture the United States and its closest allies to deal with Moscow
on a more equal footing in the Arctic. Putin has far fewer economic, military
and diplomatic chess pieces at his disposal than the combined resources of the
United States and its NATO allies. The operative word here is combined.